Photographs

Judge Mental wrote:May one suggest that the pyjama top may be a rain mac? A hat can sometimes direct the eye away from the face of the person wearing it, and we have seen a few photgraphs with hats. Even on days where it did not appear sunny enough.

Hi Judge [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, I did think about that, but dismissed it based on the fact that everyone in the lower apartments did not have to go outside to reach the upper apartments. The door that we are looking at is either the Payne's apartment 5H, or another apartment not connected to the tapas group at all. I would suggest it is an upper apartment, as there is no step up through the door, which the ground floor apartments all have I believe from memory. I think there is a photo of the front of the McCann's place and there is a step. Probably to stop rising rain water from getting inside.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Now we know from their statements, that the only time they claim the children got together was at lunch time. It could be that they were planning on going straight from the Payne's for lunch, back to afternoon creche and this is why they were wearing a rain mac ??

Or it could be that apartment is not the Payne's one in 5H, but another one in a different block, which may require a rain mac?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

When looking at the larger image more closely, there are quite a few folds in the material which would suggest a more flexible type fabric, but if you look at the other image where the tummy area is much more A line, would make you think the material is not so flexible. It's tricky...

If only we could see the original? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

maebee wrote:

Stella wrote:This is a representation of what one child was wearing during lunchtime.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


This child I believe is Tanner’s daughter. Note what is on her feet !! she is wearing a fancy design of tennis shoe/trainer. On her right foot, it looks like a white bandage is popping out above her sock. Tanner said that her daughter could not get her shoes on and had to wear slippers that week.


If this child is wearing trainers during the day and MM was also seen wearing trainers one lunchtime, why was MM suddenly wearing strappy sandals to play tennis?

I'm probably reading too much into this pic but on first glance of it I immediately thought "There's a child who's not comfortable with that man's arms around her" To me, it looks like she's pushing his arm away.

Funny how we view things differently.....to me that seems to be quite a relaxed child with a genuine smile.

Rainbow wrote:

maebee wrote:

Stella wrote:This is a representation of what one child was wearing during lunchtime.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


This child I believe is Tanner’s daughter. Note what is on her feet !! she is wearing a fancy design of tennis shoe/trainer. On her right foot, it looks like a white bandage is popping out above her sock. Tanner said that her daughter could not get her shoes on and had to wear slippers that week.


If this child is wearing trainers during the day and MM was also seen wearing trainers one lunchtime, why was MM suddenly wearing strappy sandals to play tennis?

I'm probably reading too much into this pic but on first glance of it I immediately thought "There's a child who's not comfortable with that man's arms around her" To me, it looks like she's pushing his arm away.

Funny how we view things differently.....to me that seems to be quite a relaxed child with a genuine smile.

Well it would look like this to you, wouldn't it Rainbow? When was the last time you were felt so relaxed that you held out a stiffly outstretched leg and held your right hand out in such a way as it looked as if you were about to make a clutch? The child looks as if she is using some strength ready to wriggle away, but cannot do so because Payne is gripping her left wrist.

Funny how we tend to view things differently.

Judge Mental wrote:

Rainbow wrote:

maebee wrote:

Stella wrote:This is a representation of what one child was wearing during lunchtime.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


This child I believe is Tanner’s daughter. Note what is on her feet !! she is wearing a fancy design of tennis shoe/trainer. On her right foot, it looks like a white bandage is popping out above her sock. Tanner said that her daughter could not get her shoes on and had to wear slippers that week.


If this child is wearing trainers during the day and MM was also seen wearing trainers one lunchtime, why was MM suddenly wearing strappy sandals to play tennis?

I'm probably reading too much into this pic but on first glance of it I immediately thought "There's a child who's not comfortable with that man's arms around her" To me, it looks like she's pushing his arm away.

Funny how we view things differently.....to me that seems to be quite a relaxed child with a genuine smile.

Well it would look like this to you, wouldn't it Rainbow? When was the last time you were felt so relaxed that you held out a stiffly outstretched leg and held your right hand out in such a way as it looked as if you were about to make a clutch? The child looks as if she is using some strength ready to wriggle away, but cannot do so because Payne is gripping her left wrist.

Funny how we tend to view things differently.

I find that picture very unsettling. It seems DP is holding the child so tightly.... I actually feel short of breath when I look at it. I don't like it at all!

More thoughts on the rain mac v pyjama top scenario ?


Many of the adults talked about being cold that week and not packing enough warm clothing. If they did not think to pack jumpers or jackets for themselves, I wonder how many of them would think to pack rain mac's for the children?


Rain mac's are generally full length, not jacket length. If that little girl was wearing a rain mac and it was raining, her skirt would take the full force of all the rain running off of it, which defeats the object really.


Thanks to you Judge [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I am now very happy to stick with my first thoughts.

pennylane wrote:

Judge Mental wrote:

Rainbow wrote:

maebee wrote:

Stella wrote:This is a representation of what one child was wearing during lunchtime.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


This child I believe is Tanner’s daughter. Note what is on her feet !! she is wearing a fancy design of tennis shoe/trainer. On her right foot, it looks like a white bandage is popping out above her sock. Tanner said that her daughter could not get her shoes on and had to wear slippers that week.


If this child is wearing trainers during the day and MM was also seen wearing trainers one lunchtime, why was MM suddenly wearing strappy sandals to play tennis?

I'm probably reading too much into this pic but on first glance of it I immediately thought "There's a child who's not comfortable with that man's arms around her" To me, it looks like she's pushing his arm away.

Funny how we view things differently.....to me that seems to be quite a relaxed child with a genuine smile.

Well it would look like this to you, wouldn't it Rainbow? When was the last time you were felt so relaxed that you held out a stiffly outstretched leg and held your right hand out in such a way as it looked as if you were about to make a clutch? The child looks as if she is using some strength ready to wriggle away, but cannot do so because Payne is gripping her left wrist.

Funny how we tend to view things differently.

I find that picture very unsettling. It seems DP is holding the child so tightly.... I actually feel short of breath when I look at it. I don't like it at all!

Would you feel the same if it were a different person holding her? Her smile seems genuine.her hand could be resting on his arm and kids can move and stick arms and legs out at the most inopportune times...usually just as you press the camera shutter!!!

A strange pose to take a picture of a child in IMO.

I agree littlepixie and why so many of them ?

Rainbow wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Judge Mental wrote:

Rainbow wrote:

maebee wrote:

Stella wrote:This is a representation of what one child was wearing during lunchtime.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


This child I believe is Tanner’s daughter. Note what is on her feet !! she is wearing a fancy design of tennis shoe/trainer. On her right foot, it looks like a white bandage is popping out above her sock. Tanner said that her daughter could not get her shoes on and had to wear slippers that week.


If this child is wearing trainers during the day and MM was also seen wearing trainers one lunchtime, why was MM suddenly wearing strappy sandals to play tennis?

I'm probably reading too much into this pic but on first glance of it I immediately thought "There's a child who's not comfortable with that man's arms around her" To me, it looks like she's pushing his arm away.

Funny how we view things differently.....to me that seems to be quite a relaxed child with a genuine smile.

Well it would look like this to you, wouldn't it Rainbow? When was the last time you were felt so relaxed that you held out a stiffly outstretched leg and held your right hand out in such a way as it looked as if you were about to make a clutch? The child looks as if she is using some strength ready to wriggle away, but cannot do so because Payne is gripping her left wrist.

Funny how we tend to view things differently.

I find that picture very unsettling. It seems DP is holding the child so tightly.... I actually feel short of breath when I look at it. I don't like it at all!

Would you feel the same if it were a different person holding her? Her smile seems genuine.her hand could be resting on his arm and kids can move and stick arms and legs out at the most inopportune times...usually just as you press the camera shutter!!!

I would prefer your assessment to be closer to the truth Rainbow, for the sake of DP's daughters Lily and Scarlet, and any other children he may offer to bath, discuss inappropriately, hold very tightly, or be the last person allegedly to see alive with her dubious parents, before she vanishes off the face of the earth.

pennylane wrote:I would prefer your assessment to be closer to the truth Rainbow, for the sake of DP's daughters Lily and Scarlet, and any other children he may offer to bath, discuss inappropriately, hold very tightly, or be the last person allegedly to see alive with her dubious parents, before she vanishes off the face of the earth.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Rainbow wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Judge Mental wrote:

Rainbow wrote:

maebee wrote:

Stella wrote:This is a representation of what one child was wearing during lunchtime.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


This child I believe is Tanner’s daughter. Note what is on her feet !! she is wearing a fancy design of tennis shoe/trainer. On her right foot, it looks like a white bandage is popping out above her sock. Tanner said that her daughter could not get her shoes on and had to wear slippers that week.


If this child is wearing trainers during the day and MM was also seen wearing trainers one lunchtime, why was MM suddenly wearing strappy sandals to play tennis?

I'm probably reading too much into this pic but on first glance of it I immediately thought "There's a child who's not comfortable with that man's arms around her" To me, it looks like she's pushing his arm away.

Funny how we view things differently.....to me that seems to be quite a relaxed child with a genuine smile.

Well it would look like this to you, wouldn't it Rainbow? When was the last time you were felt so relaxed that you held out a stiffly outstretched leg and held your right hand out in such a way as it looked as if you were about to make a clutch? The child looks as if she is using some strength ready to wriggle away, but cannot do so because Payne is gripping her left wrist.

Funny how we tend to view things differently.

I find that picture very unsettling. It seems DP is holding the child so tightly.... I actually feel short of breath when I look at it. I don't like it at all!

Would you feel the same if it were a different person holding her? Her smile seems genuine.her hand could be resting on his arm and kids can move and stick arms and legs out at the most inopportune times...usually just as you press the camera shutter!!!

No. Unless of course, it was another man whom one had discovered to have been bathing children who were not his own.

@ Rainbow

May one assume that you are quite happy to think of men bathing children who belong to other people? That this is a perfectly normal thing to do in your own eyes? As you can see from the comments written by other posters, this is not normal behaviour, Rainbow.

Please would you have a ring around this afternoon, and ask your own friends, relatives, colleagues etc., how often they have known something like this to occur to themselves or their own children, and come back here and tell us the results of your findings. You could perhaps start with your own next-door neighbours and knock on a few doors in the area where you live. Thank you.

ufercoffy wrote:

pennylane wrote:I would prefer your assessment to be closer to the truth Rainbow, for the sake of DP's daughters Lily and Scarlet, and any other children he may offer to bath, discuss inappropriately, hold very tightly, or be the last person allegedly to see alive with her dubious parents, before she vanishes off the face of the earth.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Actually, this is simply too unbearable for one's thoughts to linger on.

Mudge Gentle wrote: No. Unless of course, it was another man whom one had discovered to have been bathing children who were not his own.

@ Rainbow

May one assume that you are quite happy to think of men bathing children who belong to other people? That this is a perfectly normal thing to do in your own eyes? As you can see from the comments written by other posters, this is not normal behaviour, Rainbow.

Please would you have a ring around this afternoon, and ask your own friends, relatives, colleagues etc., how often they have known something like this to occur to themselves or their own children, and come back here and tell us the results of your findings. You could perhaps start with your own next-door neighbours and knock on a few doors in the area where you live. Thank you.

Please explain. Where has the issue of men bathing children who belong to other people come from? Since you are the one who has introduced the idea on this thread, why on earth should Rainbow respond to your ludicruous request?

Daoud wrote: ''Please explain. Where has the issue of men bathing children who belong to other people come from? Since you are the one who has introduced the idea on this thread, why on earth should Rainbow respond to your ludicruous request?''

@ Daoud specifically, and any other posters wishing to show disrespect and not use our chosen poster names; one would suggest that you read a little more around the subject first, and not simply wade in here, saying that posters have made ''ludicrous requests'' of any other posters.

Give yourself more time to familiarise yourself with the posters, in order that you remember their names first, and then when you have a grasp on that area, please feel free to ask why a poster has introduced, not an idea, but a reference to a statement made by the Gaspars about David Payne.

We have already lost one poster today because of their bad manners and poor attitude. It would be sad to lose another for the same reasons.

Men don't bathe other peoples children, not where I come from - in fact, in my day men rarely bathed their own - they always found a little DIY job that needed doing at bathtime [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

littlepixie wrote:Men don't bathe other peoples children, not where I come from - in fact, in my day men rarely bathed their own - they always found a little DIY job that needed doing at bathtime [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Indeed we do, littlepixie.

And one can easily see that you do not share Daoud's problem with one's reply to one of Rainbow's post wherein one began with the words, ''No. Unless of course, it was another man whom one had discovered to have been bathing children who were not his own.

Why on earth it would be considered ludicrous by any poster, that one's suggestion to Rainbow that she do a survey of her own family, friends, neighbours or colleagues to determine whether this is common behaviour or not, is quite beyond one's own comprehension.

Given that such a survey would yield the expected results of a resonant NO, it would finally reassure Rainbow that this is not normal behaviour.

Judge Mental wrote:Daoud wrote: ''Please explain. Where has the issue of men bathing children who belong to other people come from? Since you are the one who has introduced the idea on this thread, why on earth should Rainbow respond to your ludicruous request?''

@ Daoud specifically, and any other posters wishing to show disrespect and not use our chosen poster names; one would suggest that you read a little more around the subject first, and not simply wade in here, saying that posters have made ''ludicrous requests'' of any other posters.

Give yourself more time to familiarise yourself with the posters, in order that you remember their names first, and then when you have a grasp on that area, please feel free to ask why a poster has introduced, not an idea, but a reference to a statement made by the Gaspars about David Payne.

We have already lost one poster today because of their bad manners and poor attitude. It would be sad to lose another for the same reasons.

My apologies Judge Mental for a word-play gone wrong.
I'm well aware of the Gaspars' statements and also that the word for 'parents' and 'fathers' is the same in Portuguese - 'pais'. It remains a ludicrous request because it is a) not something that Rainbow was discussing, and therefore irrelevant and b) something mentioned in an English translation of a Portuguese translation of an English original i.e. very likely wrong. Until we have access to the original English statements made by the Gaspars, this ambiguity will not be resolved and is a very frail hook on which to hang anything, let alone sweeping assertions about men bathing children not their own...

Judge Mental wrote: Why on earth it would be considered ludicrous by any poster, that one's suggestion to Rainbow that she do a survey of her own family, friends, neighbours or colleagues to determine whether this is common behaviour or not, is quite beyond one's own comprehension.

Here is something I posted a while ago on another forum.

The gist of KG's statement is:

'I was seated between Dave and Gerry who I believe were both speaking about Madeleine. ...
Dave telling Gerry something like “her”, referring to Madeleine, “would do this”.

When he mentioned “this”, Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it inside and outside his mouth, while with the other hand he made a circle around his nipple, in a circulatory movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner and carried an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing. ...

I never spoke to anyone about this, but I always felt that it was very strange and it wasn’t something that someone should do or say.

Besides this [incident], I remember that Dave did the same thing once again. When I refer to this, I want to clarify that it was during a conversation in which he was talking about an imaginary situation, though I could not say exactly what about. I believe that he was talking about his own daughter, L., though I’m not certain. He put one of his fingers in his mouth and slide it in and out, while the other hand drew a circle around his nipple in a provocative and sexual manner. I believe that he was referring to the way that L., would behave or do it.

I believe that he did this later on, during the holidays, but I cannot be sure. ...

I am absolutely certain that he said what he said and that he did the gestures that I referred, but that could have occurred in the restaurant in Leicester, though (page five) I believe that it was later on, in Majorca. When I heard Dave doing and making this a second time, I took it more seriously. ...

In short, I thought that he was interested child pornography on the internet.

During our holidays I was more attentive at bath time after hearing Dave saying that. ...

I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to be careful and to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, to my daughter E.. I was very clear about this, as having heard him saying that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E. alone. ...'

It is worth remembering that KG's husband described a rather different gesture made by DP, and shared none of her suspicions about him.

(... recordando-me, contudo, vagamente de Dave usar os seu dedo indicador esquerdo para friccionar, com movimentos circulares, os seu mamilo esquerdo, enquanto colocava a cabeca do seu dedo indicador direito nos labios, tocando-lhe ao de leve com a lingua.

... nevertheless, I vaguely remember Dave rubbing his left nipple in a circular motion with his left index finger, while placing the tip of his right index finger to his lips and lightly touching it with his tongue. My translation, all corrections gratefully received.)

Now to the statement itself. The first thing that strikes me is how vague KG is about everything except the gesture itself. She's uncertain when she first heard and saw DP's words and gestures, then she's even more uncertain about whether she witnessed their repetition on the holiday or in a restaurant in Leicester 'several weeks after the holidays'. Would a mother worried and shocked to find that her daughter is in the company of paedophiles really be so vague about when and where her suspicions were aroused?

Her husband is quite clear that he never saw DP repeat the gesture, either in Mallorca or in Leicester.

She believes that on the first occasion they were both speaking about Madeleine - but offers no reason for her belief.
She believes that on the second occasion DP was talking about his daughter - but offers no reasons for her belief.

So these are some of the problems I have with the statement itself.

But there is more.

Let us take KG at her translated word and agree that the fathers bathed the children.
What exactly does she mean by this?
I can see three possibilities:

a) the fathers together collectively bathed all the children
b) the fathers, in turn, bathed their own children
c) one father (or a pair of fathers) bathed all the children, a different father (or pair of fathers) each night

[I'm assuming only one bathroom was used, but it was a big house and there were probably several available].

Do any of these possible scenarios fit in with KG's statement?

She said:

'During our holidays I was more attentive at bath time after hearing Dave saying that. ...
[If this happened on the 4th or 5th night of the holidays there would only have been one or two nights left, assuming that they left on the 7th day]

I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to be careful and to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, to my daughter E.. I was very clear about this, as having heard him saying that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E. alone'

From the second paragraph here we can see that Dave didn't bathe the children every night and that he probably didn't do so alone ('Dave helping to bathe the children'), so it looks as if options a) and b) are ruled out by KG, leaving only the second version of c) a pair of fathers.

So regardless of whether or not AG was present, DP does not seem to have bathed the children by himself.

Finally would such a conversation as KG believes she heard take place around a dinner table, with her sitting between the two? And if she is not mistaken in her interpretation why did she harbour no suspicions about GM?

So all that is left is a description of a gesture made by DP once (maybe twice), that is not confirmed by the only other witness, her husband.

I have my suspicions that KG's first language is not English and that she may have misinterpreted what she had heard, and it certainly sounds very unidiomatic to say in English The fathers bathed the children - to my ears a more natural way of phrasing it would be The men bathed the children but if she said that then where did 'os pais' come from? A careless translation? Not that it really matters, as it's a minor point.

And to add to this we know even less of KG than we do of the McCanns - she may be a serious, dedicated and down to earth professional not given to flights of fancy, or she may not - we simply do not know.

Until we know more about her, and have a copy of the original, we should approach her statement very cautiously, remembering that if this degree of vagueness, and contradiction between the statements of a couple had occurred in one of the T7's rogatory interviews, we'd be equally sceptical about it.
And have been.

@ Daoud

Dr Amaral has made several quotes that I can think of:

1. Majorca, September 2005: Dr Katherina Gaspar witnesses a scene with David Payne and Gerry McCann which flabbergasts her and makes her fear for the safety of her daughter and the other children.

2. "there were gestures and words indicating the existence of a child molester within that group of people"

3. "It would be interesting to know the reason why Mr David Payne is not taking part in the reconstitution. He might explain for how long he bathed the children and at what time."

Dr Amaral made the first quote in his book, the one whose ban was recently overturned.

David Payne has not sued Dr Amaral for making any of the 3 quotes above. Dr Gaspar has not sued him for misquoting her.

So who are you to say that Gaspars statement was a "very wrong" translation/she misinterpreted what she saw when Dr Amaral has repeated it in writing?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I'll second that ufercoffy.


Goncalo Amaral had no doubts itseems over what he saw in the original statement. Absolutely none.

Ufercoffy wrote: @ Daoud So who are you to say that Gaspars statement was a "very wrong" translation/she misinterpreted what she saw when Dr Amaral has repeated it in writing?

If you had read my post you'd have seen that I didn't state that KG's statement was a "very wrong" translation, nor that she misinterpreted what she saw - what I said was that we should approach her statement very cautiously and I gave my reasons for taking such an approach.

As for the unsourced 'quotations' from GA:

The first one is merely a summary of her statement, it has no bearing on either the accuracy of the translation or of KG's testimony and perceptions.

The second one (it's unclear from your post if GA made this statement or is attributing it to KG), well I'm afraid I disagree - however distasteful DP's gestures and words may have been, there is nothing to indicate the existence of a child molester within that group.

KG also stated:

I imagined that maybe he had visited Internet sites related to small children. In short, I thought that he was interested child pornography on the internet.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What are imaginings doing in a police statement?

Finally I don't see the relevance of the third quote to the point you're making - I'm not disputing that DP may have bathed the children on the Mallorcan holdiay.

I have no idea what DP's reasons for not suing the Gaspars was/is - though it's not very difficult to come up with plausible ones which have nothing to do with him being guilty of the paedophilia which KG accuses him of in her statement.

As for the translation twice removed from the original, have a look at these two consecutive paragraphs from her statement (she is referring to DP making similar gestures after the first occasion):

I believe that he did this later on, during the holidays, but I cannot be sure. The only time, besides this one, that I was with Dave and Fiona was several weeks after the holidays, when Savio and I met up with Gerry, Kate, Dave and Fiona at a restaurant in Leicester.

I am absolutely certain that he said what he said and that he did the gestures that I referred, but that could have occurred in the restaurant in Leicester, though (page five) I believe that it was later on, in Majorca. When I heard Dave doing and making this a second time, I took it more seriously.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There are several instances of a faulty translation in these, but I have emphasised the most glaring contradiction - the dinner in Leicester was after the holiday in Mallorca, so either KG is confused/mistaken or the translation is faulty; either way, the statement in the version available to us, is not reliable enough to draw any conclusions from - imho of course.

@ Daoud

One accepts your apology over the wordplay. Unfortunately, one's humour has been seriously depleted over the past few days, due to one's ongoing problem with this confounded gout. The splendid news over Amaral's book and the hope of Madeleine's case being unshelved shortly, has had one rushing for the Port at every opportunity. Please carry on with your wordplay, but leave Mudge or Fudge out of it [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] One's wife often uses Drudge and Grudge as pet-names in her quirkier moments, but one is sure you can do better and go for Sludge or something.

May one say that although one agrees with you regarding the possibility of a mistake having been made in translation, one is quite sure that it would certainly have been rectified and amended by now. One has only ever judged this as an excuse to be regularly trotted out by the abduction theorists, and those who do not want us to find out what really happened to Madeleine.

We have to look at the whole statement, and recognise that the police officer taking K Gaspar's statement was hardly forceful in gleaning informtion from her, and that they may indeed have persuaded Gaspar to only state as much as she would be prepared to say before fearsome lawyers for the defence should McCann and Payne be taken to court.

We have already seen the libel lawyers actions on behalf of the Kennedys and McCanns, therefore one can only imagine how savage the defence lawyers will eventually be. The Gaspars would have been warned about this. Remember Leicester police would have been in the loop very early on, but the Gaspars did not make their statements for some days. The police would have been very well prepared with regard to taking their statements.

Why would Amaral's wife have cause to state that she would not have paedophiles in her social group? Have we found an excuse for this statement yet?

@ Judge Mental, it was good of your to accept my apology and I'm glad to hear you're not letting a few confounded problems interfere without your whole-hearted support for the Portuguese economy at every opportunity.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the Gaspar statements, as I don't see any point in continuing to dispute the matter - as far as I'm concerned these statements aren't of critical importance: the case against the McCs version of events is robust enough without them.

I don't question KGs statement as a means of supporting the abduction theory, but because I think all the relevant evidence and statements in this case should be carefully and equally evaluated regardless of whether it tends to implicate or exonerate the McCs - we can't cherry-pick the evidence to support our preconceptions/suspicions, not if we are interested in discovering what actually happened to Madeleine, rather than just blackening the McCs.

Daoud wrote:@ Judge Mental, it was good of your to accept my apology and I'm glad to hear you're not letting a few confounded problems interfere without your whole-hearted support for the Portuguese economy at every opportunity.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the Gaspar statements, as I don't see any point in continuing to dispute the matter - as far as I'm concerned these statements aren't of critical importance: the case against the McCs version of events is robust enough without them.

I don't question KGs statement as a means of supporting the abduction theory, but because I think all the relevant evidence and statements in this case should be carefully and equally evaluated regardless of whether it tends to implicate or exonerate the McCs - we can't cherry-pick the evidence to support our preconceptions/suspicions, not if we are interested in discovering what actually happened to Madeleine, rather than just blackening the McCs.

@ Daoud

The McCanns have blackened themselves way beyond any blackening that posters on websites could dream of doing. One is quite happy to agree to disagree, but would suggest that it is only by carefully evaluating the Gaspars statements, and indeed the social worker Yvonne Martin's statement, that we can begin to look for possible motives for the declared abduction. The very fact that the Gaspars statements were not conveyed to the PJ is the deciding factor as to the critical importance of their statements.

Suspicions and preconceptions are not the exclusive right of police officers you know. It is not cherry-picking to give serious consideration to the Gaspars statements. Had these statements been delivered promptly to the PJ, the investigation would not have continued down the route designed by Team McCann. There is much to be disputed here, and one would hope that you can see why this is of the utmost importance to oneself and very many others.

There is much to discuss with regards to why the statements were not heeded. There is also the very serious issue of the senior social worker Yvonne Martin having t write to the police anonymously. One agrees that the case against the McCanns is robust enough with the Gaspars statements. however we have not defined the motive for Madeleine's body being hidden.

No body = no post mortem. Simple as that.